Comment on People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies
Limerance@piefed.social 15 hours agoYours is the most challenging and interesting reply to this post. Of course it‘s downvoted by the intellectual nepotism babies.
Could you elaborate a bit or share links for some reading?
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 15 hours ago
Thank you! And very interesting, from My end it’s showing 4 upvotes and 4 downvotes. From your end is it showing a negative score? If so, I bet those votes come from instances we’ve defederated, because we don’t federate with realist instances like lemmy.ml. Those people over there are really big on objective reality, and we aren’t interested in arguing with them.
Anyway, sure thing! I wrote an antirealist manifesto which you can read at https://soulism.net. But here’s the elevator pitch: You’re not a body, you’re a mind. You’re made of information, and so are your perceptions. So is the world you inhabit. Your subjective view of the world is a reconstruction, created from raw data by your brain. Babies don’t know how to do that, they have no idea what’s going on, they just see colours and shapes. You had to learn how to see objects, how to see a world. So what if you learned differently? What if you took the time to examine the way your perceptions are formed, and made conscious choices about how to do it? That is a thing that can be done, and the colloquial term for such is… magic. Rewriting reality through belief and perception. I would argue that we have an ethical duty to use magic to ensure we are perceiving the world in a way that is just. We need to be active agents in our subjective universe so that we can’t be manipulated into doing harm.
Limerance@piefed.social 15 hours ago
I was wondering, if you were referring to Soulism. I first encountered it, when a Soulist instance was announced.
What you’re saying jibes well with themes I know from psychology, therapy, and occultism.
Contrary to materialist Marxist victim thinking, soulism seems to empower the individual to change.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 14 hours ago
Our current consensus reality is heavily shaped by capitalist propaganda. If we achieve a material revolution but not a magical revolution, if we overthrow Capital but don’t destroy Capitalist Reality, then we’re going to reproduce the conditions of capitalism. That was one of the failures of the Soviet Union. The people in charge still thought like capitalists. They still believed that human nature was in conflict with the stateless classless utopia that Marx described as the future. The USSR leadership were believers in capitalist realism, as many Stalinists are today.
Humanity is a social construct and I want to spark a revolution that sees us move beyond it. I don’t think humanity is the “destiny” of our civilisation, I think we have a much greater potential for growth. I’m a transhumanist, and I think the mental is way bigger than the physical in that journey. I don’t think a realist can be a transhumanist in a meaningful way. Elon Musk is not transhumanist in a meaningful way. He’s very human, he’s very interested in continuing the human tradition of domination and exploitation. He’s a monkey that wants a bigger pile of bananas than all the other monkeys. I don’t think that’s the future. I think if we don’t grow beyond that, then we’re all going to die.
Limerance@piefed.social 14 hours ago
Yes, humanity needs a spiritual transformation of thought.
Marxists are materialists necessarily because it stems from a rejection of capitalism and private ownership. The vision of a classless communist society is extremely vague and put off to the far future.
Leftists often stay trapped in criticism, deconstruction, contrarianism. Anti- capitalism becomes an end unto itself. If the revolution is successful, revolution itself becomes a fetish.
Kolanaki@pawb.social 13 hours ago
lol no they aren’t
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 hours ago
Really? My perception of them has always been that they have a very strong belief in objective reality and are unwilling to entertain ideas of subjectivity. They often define themselves as materialists in a way that is less how Marx used the term and more how Dawkins would use it.